Bryan Singer Discusses Being Replaced on "Man of Steel"

After Christopher Reeve's "Superman" movies, Warner Bros attempted to reboot the franchise several times. The studio eventually succeed in 2006 with "Superman Returns." A $270 million budget was given and director Bryan Singer (X-Men) was hired. Unfortunately, the film underperformed in theaters and failed to impress Superman fans.

A sequel was rumored, with Singer promising a lot more action, but Warner Bros decided to go in a different direction. In a few months, we'll get another reboot, "Man of Steel," which is directed by Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300) and produced by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight). And now, Singer commented on the studio's decision not to bring him back for "Superman Returns 2."

"If this was a few year ago, I might have [felt disappointed] - but so much time has passed," he said. "I've done two movies [since 'Superman Returns'], I'll be on my third movie now in the ['X-Men'] universe. So while it would have been nice [to make 'Superman Returns 2'] then, now I'm actually genuinely looking forward to seeing Zack's movie."

Singer continued: "I got very nostalgic with my movie, but even if you take it in another direction, it's very challenging. Inherently [Superman] is such a good guy. What's easier about X-Men is that they're all so conflicted."

I liked Superman Returns as far as, graphics goes. Seeing Superman with today's graphics and stuff like that was pretty cool. Now I remember talking about how cool it would be to see that fight between Superman and Zod from number 2 with today's technology and graphics now it looks like I get my wish. I just hope there is no Superboy. I think that was my only problem with Superman Returns mother effing Superman's kid, stupid idea and the fact that there are countless of enemies of Superman and they chose Lex again. Cmon. I want to see Helspont in a superman movie after this new one. Or Darkseid.

"Superman Returns" is a great film....for 1983. This is essentially a loose sequel to Superman 2, ignoring the Richard Pryor 1983 Superman 3. "Returns" would have been a great trilogy-capper had it been the basis Superman 3.
Singer's idea is admirable, but it is essentially stupid. Superman needed to be reintroduced to todays' audiences in a fresh and exciting new way. This was to be a franchise starter, and it landed with a thud. I love the Reeve films (1&2 only), and they captured the imagination of moviegoers by proclaiming, "You will be a man can fly." And we did. But Singer's film had none of that excitement, and failed to enthrall any moviegoers. It was a Superman film where he did very little that was "super." He saved a plane, got shot in the eye, and took a kryptonite-tarball in space--that's it. And everyone is tired of Lex Luthor as Supes only nemesis in these films.
I thought Brandon Routh was a fine Superman, but Lois Lane was terribly miscast. I can't even remember the actress' name. Spacey was fine, but he's essentially doing a riff on Hackman's portrayal.
As much as I love the Donner films(watch the Donner cut of Superman 2), Superman needed a reboot, a fresh take for a new generation. And Singer's film did none of that. It was a film whose heart and head was in another time.

Its a logical but unfortunate conclusion to think a movie is overrated.
When one doesnt see a movie when its released whether its from not being able to or youre just born too late
You hear and read peoples opinions and movie quotes over time and the hype is near impossible to justify.

Of course youll think the party sucked when youre tardy to the party or you get to the party and youre too young to get in

I kinda agree with u there..I actually thought Superman Returns was a good movie..it wasnt "terrible".. but it was "outdated"..i think thats what hurt it..as u said, it needed to be re-introduced to a new generation in a new fresh way but Singer was too in love with the donner universe of superman to completely make it fresh and new..its ironic sort of..it was meant to be the start of a new series yet instead it ended up being the closing gap of the donner universe..and if u love Superman the movie and superman 2 then i guess it serves as an honorable closure to those movies if u ignore superman 3 and 4

Meh. All this talk about time and space. Please. Singer's Superman film would have been decent if it hadn't suffered from the indescribable "something" that pervades all his films. A listlessness. A deadened sense of timing. I can't really explain it. I mean, Superman didn't do much, true. No villain to battle except Luthor, whose entire ambition was to build a continent in the ocean. No Doomsday, no Brainiac, no Mongul. Just Spacey aping Hackman.

I think if they had dropped the kid, given Superman a proper villain, and revised the Lois Lane character to better fit the original's tender interior and tough can-do Modern Woman exterior, than I think people would have enjoyed the film a hell of a lot more than they did.

In fact, I think the ONLY thing that went right with SR was Routh's Superman, so I disagree with all of you who say Donner's particular incarnation of Supes is "outdated", when especially if you consider all the redone retro horrors and whatnot that go on to bank despite being somewhat quaint, like that Cabin in the Woods crap.

Whatever. I just think you're wrong, because The Artist, being black and white and silent and sent to a limited number of theaters and screenings (about 1/3 those of SR) still made an impressive 1/3 of what SR made.

So maybe it's not that SR is, was "outdated", but maybe it was just boring and insipid?

I think he did too, and I think most of the film's problems lie with the script, which Singer didn't write.

Always funny how we often credit the director of a film when it fails, and credit the producer either when it succeeds (a Michael Bay/Steven Spielberg Production) or when we think the director's name can't fill the seats.

Perhaps "outdated" was too strong of a word..I love what Donnor did..dont get me wrong..I can still watch Superman the movie and superman 2 to this day and enjoy them..what i probably should have said was that its a "classic" version of Superman..a simple old school classic version of the hero that ppl from a certain generation enjoyed..that today's kids may not appreciate or enjoy as much..what i also meant by outdated was for example Lex Luther..there is no modern luther of the last 20 some years that havnt been put in the big screen yet..the corporate evil scheming Lex..not the criminal that hides out with lesser goons like Otis or Kal Penn..although i do enjoy that..but i'd like to see the version that is the guy sitting on top of LexCorp.

I agree with your points and I wonder why they felt the need to go with Lex again anyway. Could have introduced a far more intimidating villain and then perhaps brought in a more fiercesome and less buffoonish Lex in the sequel.

I also think people forget the hand Siegel's family had in the 2006 fiasco, which is IIRC, a huge reason WB didn't do a fresh reboot.

Anyway, I certainly don't think SR is outdated. Perhaps there's too much of that deference to the Donner vision, too much ancestral baggage, but for me, that's certainly NOT the reason the film sucks.

1. The bastard kid.
2. Lois was a bitch (as always).
3. Lex was a buffoon.
4. Clark and Supes showing up at the same time after 5 years.

Otherwise, the jet rescue was fab. as were the bullet to the eye, and flying in front of the mini-gun. Seeing/haring a bit o' Brando again, John Williams music, Supes holding up the car in 'Action Comics #1 (1938) - cover fashion, flying through the building, and even Routh... all good. Still... I think we've all grown up enough to see a 'realistic' Superman for a change. Real alien trying to fit in, find his place on this adoptive planet of his. Learning his responsibility. Knowing he can't be everywhere at the same time to save all things, and living with that.

^^^Yeah, but what the f*ck is *realistic* about a comic book for Christ's sake? That's the ENTIRE point of having them, the lack of realism, the freefall into fantasy.

Besides, who the f*ck can say what's realistic about a guy in blue plastic pajamas and China's flag on his back flying around battling bald CEO's and aliens escaping from bathroom mirrors?

All this *realism* is just STUPID, and even more stupid when you consider how new it is, and how we all did just fine without it for decades.

There's NOTHING realistic about Superman. Maybe Batman, but not Superman. Demanding "realism' for this fantastical character not only defies belief, it entirely undermines the entire existential point of Superman and his and all comics themselves.

You guys are STRANGE. On one hand you whine and pine for ancient movies like Die Hard, which wasn't all that damned realistic either, and on the other hand you decry older comic book movies because the titular character isn't some mopey-dopey dour dude estranged-from-the-world young adult still battling superhuman bedwetting and supersonic premature ejaculation.

I guess I should have added yesterday, not that there's anyone on this thread still reading, that Superman Returns isn't outdated, it's that they made a direct sequel movie to a movie most people sitting in theaters 2006 hadn't ever seen.